Fake News is Not a Problem

So even though I stated in the OP that this is a real news agency, the pretending that it is anything but fake news is troubling, especially with lies
such as the headline in the example.

That's your opinion. Obama said this:

If we are not serious about facts and what's true and what's not -- and particularly in an age of social media where so many people are
getting their information in soundbites and snippets off their phones -- if we can't discriminate between serious arguments and propaganda, then we
have problems. If people, whether they are conservative or liberal, left or right, are unwilling to compromise and engage in the democratic process,
and are taking absolutist views and demonizing opponents, then democracy will break down.

The opinion of the author is that Obama has pointed blame at "fake news".

You illustrated what lengths some are willing to go to paint a narrative, and in the process, to distribute falsities.

You removed the entire premise of his last sentence ( If people, whether they are conservative or liberal, left or right, are unwilling to compromise
and engage in the democratic process, and are taking absolutist views and demonizing opponents...), so that you could connect its conclusion to
another clause from an entirely different sentence. This is fake news.

I can't be alone in seeing the irony. Those who suddenly have taken up the flag of battling "fake news" have, for the past several months, been the
main purveyors of "fake news." Fake polls (or polls biased in their creation and presented as "balanced). Fake narratives (or narratives that
perpetuate what "the country" is thinking).

I despise (what at least my perception of) "fake news" is. That being said, no matter how hard I try, I'm only human and at the moment I'm unable to
take my eyes off the sources of the rallies against "fake news" at this moment in time... a few days away from an allegedly "shocking" election.

Edit to Add: I don't want you, LesMisanthrope, to think that I believe you to be a purveyor of "fake news" now or in the past.

The question I have is; if fake news is such an issue to Obama, than why did he legalize the use of propaganda on US Citizens?

Obama loves the fake news, that's why he aided in making it legal for them to do so.

The fake news IS a real problem, and it's only been a real problem since propaganda has been legalized.

HR4310 in the NDAA legalizes the use of propaganda on American Citizens. It's a repeal to a ban we had in place for years and years and years, for
good reason.

You illustrated what lengths some are willing to go to paint a narrative, and in the process, to distribute falsities.

You removed the entire premise of his last sentence ( If people, whether they are conservative or liberal, left or right, are unwilling to compromise
and engage in the democratic process, and are taking absolutist views and demonizing opponents...), so that you could connect its conclusion to
another clause from an entirely different sentence. This is fake news.

I was just trying to make the point that the author's opinion is valid, even if you disagree, not discuss the depths of Obama's observation.

You're arguing with click bait! Politicians, newsmen, advertiser and preachers have always sounded some kind of alarm to get people's attention.

I will say though, this "If people, whether they are conservative or liberal, left or right, are unwilling to compromise and engage in the
democratic process, and are taking absolutist views and demonizing opponents, then democracy will break down." is being demonstrated thread after
thread, here on ATS.

For crying out loud, we can't even agree on what "fake news" is and what is "opinion"!

I was just trying to make the point that the author's opinion is valid, even if you disagree, not discuss the depths of Obama's observation.

You're arguing with click bait! Politicians, newsmen, advertiser and preachers have always sounded some kind of alarm to get people's attention.

I will say though, this "If people, whether they are conservative or liberal, left or right, are unwilling to compromise and engage in the democratic
process, and are taking absolutist views and demonizing opponents, then democracy will break down." is being demonstrated thread after thread, here on
ATS.

For crying out loud, we can't even agree on what "fake news" is and what is "opinion"!

It's not an opinion. It is objectively true that Obama said nothing about fake news being a threat to democracy. He didn't even imply it. If the
author retracts his false statement, and apologizes for the misinformation, they could be considered "real news".

I already defined what fake news was for you. Do we not agree on that?

Fake new would be Don Lemon interviewing a protester.....until it was pointed out that the protester was a CNN cameraman. That is fake news..... made
up a perpetrator to create a story. The man was there to film the protest for work, not an actual protester.

It's not an opinion. It is objectively true that Obama said nothing about fake news being a threat to democracy.

Again, that's you opinion. In my opinion the following quote addresses the over all catch phrase "fake news".

If we are not serious about facts and what's true and what's not -- and particularly in an age of social media where so many people are getting
their information in soundbites and snippets off their phones -- if we can't discriminate between serious arguments and propaganda, then we
have problems.

Fake new would be Don Lemon interviewing a protester.....until it was pointed out that the protester was a CNN cameraman. That is fake news..... made
up a perpetrator to create a story. The man was there to film the protest for work, not an actual protester.

Again, that's you opinion. In my opinion the following quote addresses the over all catch phrase "fake news".

Again, it's not an opinion, but objective fact. The headline is "Fake news a threat to democracy, Obama says". The author, and your frankenstein job
of pulling disparate words to form your own sentences, are guilty of the exact same thing. That puts you right up there with infowars.

No it's not an objective fact. It's your opinion, and a pretty obtuse one at that. The author has the right to paraphrase, and sum up what
he/she took away from Obama's quote. You have the right to disagree. You don't have a right to your own facts.

There's no question that Obama addresses the problems of misinformation, as well as absolutists who refuse to compromise. Both problems can easily be
observed in this very thread.

No it's not an objective fact. It's your opinion, and a pretty obtuse one at that. The author has the right to paraphrase, and sum up what he/she took
away from Obama's quote. You have the right to disagree. You don't have a right to your own facts.

There's no question that Obama addresses the problems of misinformation, as well as absolutists who refuse to compromise. Both problems can easily be
observed in this very thread.

Lies and misinformation. It's not my opinion, because one, Obama says no such thing, and two, what he explicitly lists as the problems of democracy
are the things I listed before, which you can cross-reference with his speech, but you won't because it goes against your "opinions". I did not make
up these facts, unlike you making up the bit about fake news being a problem of democracy.

If we are not serious about facts and what's true and what's not -- and particularly in an age of social media where so many people are
getting their information in soundbites and snippets off their phones -- if we can't discriminate between serious arguments and propaganda,
then we have problems.

The author summarized what he took away from Obama's little talk. I've pointed out where Obama sights what can be defined as "fake news" as being a
problem for democracy, the subject of his talk.

Like I said, You're welcome to your opinion. You're NOT welcome to your own facts!

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.